Some would argue that a price war is exactly what cancer patients need
As expected, Bayer AG has challenged India’s first compulsory license (CL) granted to Natco Pharma for its cancer drug Nexavar. But the CL has already benefitted cancer patients. In late March, Roche, as part of an agreement, announced that it would sell cheaper versions of two of its cancer drugs, Herceptin and MabThera, manufactured for India by Pune-based Emcure Pharmaceuticals..
The chain reaction continues. Cipla’s recent announcement that it will reduce the prices of three cancer drugs in its portfolio could be the start of a price war in the oncology drug segment. Soranib, Cipla’s generic version of Nexavar, will now cost Rs 6,840 for a month’s therapy, less than the Rs 8800 which Natco proposed to charge for a month’s dose as part of its appeal for a CL.
Yet, these drastically reduced prices are still too high for a majority of cancer patients in India. Access programmes run by companies and NGOs can only benefit a segment of cancer patients. When will the Government of India step up its efforts to include the rest?
Some would argue that a price war is exactly what cancer patients need, but Bayer’s challenge ensures that the case will drag on. The Novartis-Glivec case is also due for a hearing on July 10, which is another legal battle under close watch. The judgements on both the Novartis and Bayer cases will have far reaching consequences on patients, the individual companies as well as the Indian pharma industry.
Another threat on the horizon is the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA). Karel De Gucht, the European trade commissioner, has said that “concluding an ambitious free trade agreement (FTA) between the EU and India is one of his priorities as EU trade commissioner”. In a letter posted on April 30 on the website, www.theparliament.com, he writes, “I also recognise fully India’s important role as producer and exporter of generic medicines. To ensure that the agreement will not have a negative impact on access to affordable medicines in India or elsewhere, I have clearly agreed with India’s trade minister Anand Sharma that the chapter on intellectual property rights will not request either side to amend its legislation on intellectual property. This means that the FTA will not request India to change its law either with respect to data exclusivity or the supplementary protection of patents beyond the 20 years required by the World Trade Organisation’s trade-related aspects of intellectual property rights agreement.”
This does not seem to reassure Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF) and other NGOs, who have raised objections to a draft opinion on the ACTA due for a vote on May 14. The Government of India and regulatory bodies like the Patent Office need to stand their ground on these various issues. Or are these false hopes, soon to turn to dust ?
Viveka Roychowdhury
Editor
